The fact is, fools, con-artists and murderers run this world, and anyone that threatens their power and control will be eliminated without regard to facts, evidence, truth, or justice.
First they ignore. Then they character-assassinate. Then they remove. Sometimes permanently.
H.L.Menken said:" You are free to say anything you want, as long as it has no effect", and that is the essence of true Political-correctness, to be politically-correct means that which does not threaten the power-structure. All else is a trivial distraction or a divide and rule utility.

These SUBJECTIVE laws(arbitrary and whimsical) are "fixed" from the start, and one will not get a fair, objective hearing because the basis for the law is an *unfalsifiable presupposition*.
This "Holocaust" absolutism is one of many frauds and crimes against humanity, there is a psychic and physical war against us by the rulers of this world who have propagated the idea that we are powerless and they are all-powerful, but their power is based on an illusion(like their "money") and false perceptions-- they need our cooperation and permission. Inaction and apathy equals consent, the avoidance or willful ignorance of truth is avoidance of responsibility, the responsibility of choosing between perpetual child-hood, which translates into slavery, or resistance and freedom. The avoider chooses slavery, but denies it.
Or, as Samuel Adams said: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!".

I think Prof. Butz should change the name of his book to; "A Hoax of the 20th Century".”Sample this documentary, which meets or exceeds the evils of the Holohoax:
"The Other Side of AIDS",( the McGill Prof. interview is very enlightening, he wishes to criminalize "AIDS-denial").
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2132861595

Cases like this are the best proof that the 'holocaust' story is a fraud. It is so weak that it cannot stand up to scrutiny and Jewish supremacists know it, hence they demand imprisonment of Thought Criminals.

Wolfgang Fröhlich of the FPÖ [Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs = Austrian Freedom Party] sentenced to six years and four months for Understating the "Holocaust"

Translated by J M Damon [original German text]

THIS is another very dark day for justice and the law. In the case of the Engineer Wolfgang Fröhlich: yesterday the Appellate Court in Vienna pronounced verdict in his appeal trial on account of excessive severity of sentence.

(The lower court had imposed a sentence of 6 years and 4 months, with 5 years still a possibility).

The appeal was rejected.

The sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld in full.

Needless to say, certain circles are jubilant.

Once again an intrepid scientist and historian, tireless champion of human rights and critic of official falsehoods has been taken out of circulation for many years!

This is a real catastrophe.

It is yet another national scandal providing more evidence of the complete bankruptcy of the justice system in Austria, which still pretends to be a constitutional state.

In Austria, scientific research as well as all criticism of officially decreed historiography, along with the laws limiting freedom of speech imposed by the Allies over 60 years ago, are enforced by political show trials that impose many years of imprisonment.

A Gedächtnisprotokoll ("recollected record") of the trial summarized the whole procedure, which belongs on a third-rate burlesque stage.

(Austrian courts do not keep a running account of what goes on during trial).

The amazing servility of the Defense can be explained only by the fact that if the defending attorney had represented the accused as professional ethics require, he too would have faced criminal indictment for the crime of "Resurrecting National Socialism."

The Defense made the incredible statement that "democracy" must find measures to correct persons who feel obligated to support the truth and must therefore go to prison.

Whose side is such a defense attorney on?

It is of course much simpler and easier to do as Parliamentary President Graf of the FPÖ did: during his inauguration he completely threw his convictions overboard, flying his banner in the direction of the politically correct wind.

The Defense tells us that if we criticize the draconian laws against National Socialism we will be imprisoned for many years, always under the same pretext.

The Court does not accept counter evidence.

It is astounding that such conditions exist, while the government pretends to continue its support of the Enlightenment ideal of freedom of opinion and research, as well as support of the Convention on Human Rights.

Fröhlich argued that he had always written to the same limited circle of addresses.

His attorney argued that a democracy should find other means for reforming errant persons and pleaded for mitigation of punishment!

The Prosecution argued that as an incorrigible repeat offender he deserved the punishment he received.

Fröhlich argued that he never committed the offense of which he was convicted, namely complete denial of "Holocaust."

Presiding judge responded that if this were true he would not have been being convicted, and that he could address nothing except his sentence.

Fröhlich pointed out that under such laws as these, freedom of research cannot exist, to which the presiding judge responded that it is up to Parliament to change the laws.

Yes, Froehlich was trying to spead the truth, but I think Dahl's phrase "spreading revisionist arguments" is fine. *Their* language would be something like "spreading hate." Laurentz offered new and important information to the forum, and I think your schooling him about his language comes off as patronizing and doesn't really add to the thread.

By coincidence,over the last few days I have been reading up on case law in the European Court of Human Rights. This court was established under the European convention on human rights. One of its most important tasks is to protect "fundamental rights". Article 2.10 states that individuals have the right to freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information and ideas. Both Germany and Austria have ratified the convention.

As far as I can tell there is no case law dealing with "denial of the holocaust". The closest I could find was "Lingens v. Austria". Briefly the case; Lingens was a publisher and in 1 of his publications he made some rather unpleasant comments about the Austrian Chancellor EG, that the Chancellor was "immoral & undignified". This was in violation of Austrian law and Lingens was charged and fined. He appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. The decision of the court is rather long but in a nutshell, the court said that there is a distinction between facts and opinions. Facts can be demonstrated but opinions are a matter of value judgment and cannot therefore be either proven or disproven.
The court therefore ruled that Austrian law infringed article 10 of the convention and that Lingens could not be punished.

It would appear to me that "holocaust denial" is much the same as the case above. In MY OPINION the holocaust did NOT happen. It matters not that someone can demonstrate that the holocaust did occur (good luck with that one) nor does it matter that I can prove that it didn't. Under the articles of the convention I have the right to hold an opinion and to state that opinion publicly.

I can't understand why any lawyer representing a convicted person hasn't taken this course.